At Wed, 23 Jul 2014 01:52:30 +0200,
Arno Töll wrote:
> However, if you call aptitude --purge-unused:
>
> - apt purges apache2.2-common. This calls apache2.2-common's postrm
> purge, wiping all our configuration
> - install apache2{-bin,-data}
> - preinst apache2 detects an upgrade, but has no clue
On 2014-07-23 02:05:26 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 23.07.2014 01:19, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > BTW, I'm wondering whether the fact that "invoke.rc-d apache2 restart"
> > fails should make the postinst script fail and affect the whole upgrade.
>
> It does actually as we fixed #716921 a while back
On 23.07.2014 01:19, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> BTW, I'm wondering whether the fact that "invoke.rc-d apache2 restart"
> fails should make the postinst script fail and affect the whole upgrade.
It does actually as we fixed #716921 a while back.
> If the goal is to make the user notice that Apache d
On 23.07.2014 01:19, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> Possible radical solution: abandon old apache binary package names
> [of those that ship conffiles], introduce a new set of names,
> Conflict/Break (but not Replace?) the old ones and have all modules
> depend on the new packages.
> 3rdparty modu
On 2014-07-23 01:19:01 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Arno Töll [140722 22:10]:
> > On 21.07.2014 20:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > Yes, and a consequence of this loss is that dpkg fails.
> >
> > dpkg does not at all fail. If anything dpkg errors out because Apache's
> > maintainer sc
* Arno Töll [140722 22:10]:
> On 21.07.2014 20:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, and a consequence of this loss is that dpkg fails.
> >
>
> dpkg does not at all fail. If anything dpkg errors out because Apache's
> maintainer script failed, because "invoke.rc-d apache2 restart" failed,
>
On 2014-07-22 22:10:07 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 21.07.2014 20:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > Yes, and a consequence of this loss is that dpkg fails.
>
> dpkg does not at all fail. If anything dpkg errors out because Apache's
> maintainer script failed, because "invoke.rc-d apache2 restart" fai
On 21.07.2014 20:58, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
> Yes, and a consequence of this loss is that dpkg fails.
>
dpkg does not at all fail. If anything dpkg errors out because Apache's
maintainer script failed, because "invoke.rc-d apache2 restart" failed,
because ... you guess it, somebody removed the
On 2014-07-17 15:44:18 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> On 17.07.2014 15:38, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > My understanding was that the new apache binaries would install new
> > config files, and it would then work? (With the correct
> > replaces/breaks/...)
>
> Yes. However, Apache has a notable nu
Hi,
On 14.07.2014 14:05, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> How about creating a new apache2-config package just to move these
> configuration files?
for the record: from an informal request the Release Team does not seem
to be comfortable with anything like that. Therefore, I suspect if
anything, I nee
Could we please decouple the --purge-unused thread with the "Solutions
for the Apache upgrade hell" thread?
It's getting confusing and I am only interested about Apache2 and not
about aptitude.
Thanks,
O.
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014, at 23:32, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 1
On Jo, 17 iul 14, 03:17:35, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2014-07-16 14:28:00 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:36:32AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > I do that too. I haven't seen any official documentation saying that
> > > this is a bad thing to do.
> >
> > apti
On 17.07.2014 15:38, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> My understanding was that the new apache binaries would install new
> config files, and it would then work? (With the correct
> replaces/breaks/...)
Yes. However, Apache has a notable number of configuration files (not
conffiles), namely symlink
* Vincent Lefevre [140717 04:02]:
> On 2014-07-17 03:21:28 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > * Arno Töll [140713 13:25]:
> > > * Ignore the problem, and refer to the manpage of aptitude without
> > > proper fix etc. which clearly says "THIS OPTION CAN CAUSE DATA LOSS! DO
> > > NOT USE IT U
On 2014-07-17 03:21:28 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Arno Töll [140713 13:25]:
> > * Ignore the problem, and refer to the manpage of aptitude without
> > proper fix etc. which clearly says "THIS OPTION CAN CAUSE DATA LOSS! DO
> > NOT USE IT UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING". The bad n
Hi Arno,
* Arno Töll [140713 13:25]:
> [..]
>
> To summarize the bug reports: The problem is, that Apache package
> maintainers at that time decided, that third party modules shall depend
> on apache2.2-common, by guaranteeing ABIs remain stable as long as the
> package name does not change. [..
On 2014-07-16 14:28:00 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:36:32AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > I do that too. I haven't seen any official documentation saying that
> > this is a bad thing to do.
>
> aptitude actively warns against it as highlighted in this thread.
On 2014-07-16 13:46:12 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 11:41:25 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2014-07-13 13:17:24 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> > > Unfortunately it turns out, that /a lot/ of people use "aptitude
> > > --purge-unused safe-upgrade", or the apt equivalent "apt-
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:36:32AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2014-07-14 08:53:22 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > But I normally use "apt-get --purge dist-upgrade" both to upgrade
> > across distros and to stay within one distro (or sid), because
> > otherwise I get issues:
> >
> > * Run
Hi!
On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 11:41:25 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2014-07-13 13:17:24 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> > Unfortunately it turns out, that /a lot/ of people use "aptitude
> > --purge-unused safe-upgrade", or the apt equivalent "apt-get
> > dist-upgrade --purge" which causes dpkg to pur
On 2014-07-14 08:53:22 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> But I normally use "apt-get --purge dist-upgrade" both to upgrade
> across distros and to stay within one distro (or sid), because
> otherwise I get issues:
>
> * Running upgrade before dist-upgrade sometimes doesn't get the
> dependencies r
On 2014-07-13 13:17:24 +0200, Arno Töll wrote:
> Unfortunately it turns out, that /a lot/ of people use "aptitude
> --purge-unused safe-upgrade", or the apt equivalent "apt-get
> dist-upgrade --purge" which causes dpkg to purge the user's
> configuration, in particular enabled modules, during the u
Jeff Epler wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I use apt dist-upgrade normally and then, periodically, run:
> > dpkg --get-selections | grep deinstall | awk '{ print $1 }' \
> > | xargs dpkg --purge
> >
> > This is obviously somewhat unsafe. It would be neat to have a tool that
> > would
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:52:12AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I use apt dist-upgrade normally and then, periodically, run:
>
> dpkg --get-selections | grep deinstall | awk '{ print $1 }' \
> | xargs dpkg --purge
>
> This is obviously somewhat unsafe. It would be neat to have a tool
On 2014-07-14 18:52 +0200, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thorsten Glaser writes:
>
>> * Running dist-upgrade without --purge will keep packages in 'rc'
>> state around, which a later APT call will not even recognise;
>> you need to manually "dpkg --purge pkg1 pkg2 ..." to get rid
>> of them
>
> I u
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> * Running dist-upgrade without --purge will keep packages in 'rc'
> state around, which a later APT call will not even recognise;
> you need to manually "dpkg --purge pkg1 pkg2 ..." to get rid
> of them
I use apt dist-upgrade normally and then, periodically, run:
bofh80 dixit:
>"apt-get --purge dist-upgrade"
> How does this now translate to over the new apt full-upgrade?
I do not use “the new apt ” anything command. It is purely optional,
and you can use apt-cache and apt-get as you are used to.
>"apt-get --purge dist-upgrade --auto-remove pkgtoinstall p
Le dimanche 13 juillet 2014 à 15:28 +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
> > Moving them to apache2 package would mean you won't have to move them
> > again in the upgrade to apache 2.4, but it would create a new and
> > circular dependency of apache2.2-common on apache2. Given that
> > apache2.2-common alre
h01ger wrote:
>I've never used "upgrade --purge" _in one step_ and I don't think it's a
>particularily smart idea at all. But if people want to shoot themselves in
The --purge is a no-op with "upgrade".
But I normally use "apt-get --purge dist-upgrade" both to upgrade
across distros and to stay
Hi Arno,
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014, at 13:17, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we've got a problem with Apache that causes problems during upgrades
> (e.g. #716880, #752922, #711925). In short, the issue is that Apache 2.4
> changed ABIs, so that we need to ensure that dpkg properly removes
> packages li
Hey there.
On 07/13/2014 08:36 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Arno,
>
> On Sonntag, 13. Juli 2014, Arno Töll wrote:
>> * Ignore the problem, and refer to the manpage of aptitude without
>> proper fix etc. which clearly says "THIS OPTION CAN CAUSE DATA LOSS! DO
>> NOT USE IT UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU
Hi Jeroen,
On 13.07.2014 15:09, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> It's not really ideal either, but another option would be doing an
> update in the next wheezy point release preparing this migration. For
> example moving the configuration files from apache2.2-common to
> apache2 or apache2.2-bin in wheezy
At Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:17:24 +0200,
Arno Töll wrote:
> What would you do in our situation? Side note 2: We kinda expected this
> situation and added a trapdoor in Wheezy [1], but it turned out, that
> even that is not good enough to prevent havoc with --purge-unused.
It's not really ideal either,
Hi Arno,
On Sonntag, 13. Juli 2014, Arno Töll wrote:
> * Ignore the problem, and refer to the manpage of aptitude without
> proper fix etc. which clearly says "THIS OPTION CAN CAUSE DATA LOSS! DO
> NOT USE IT UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING".
seems right to me, given the alternatives you descr
Hello,
we've got a problem with Apache that causes problems during upgrades
(e.g. #716880, #752922, #711925). In short, the issue is that Apache 2.4
changed ABIs, so that we need to ensure that dpkg properly removes
packages linking against the obsolete ABIs at upgrade time. This is the
first time
35 matches
Mail list logo
